Woohoo! I made it To the end!
I personally don't agree with anything that says the law was changed EXCEPT as it references penalty/remedy (i.e. sacrifices; "sin = death") because if we think about it the law always had an overlay of God's mercy (i.e. the tablets in the ark covered by the "mercy seat"). In fact, it was God's mercy that established the sacrificial laws to substitute an animal for a man so that the man didn't have to pay for sins with his *own* life. But the law in this way was insufficient because it could never affect the cleansing of the guilty party's conscience/heart. Note that this insufficiency is dealing with *after* a sin has been committed (i.e. law is broken). The Law is insufficient in making the sinner whole again post-crime.
But if we think about it further, not even the penalty has changed. One still had/has to die for sin. So the truth is someone else who had no sin simply took that penalty for us, making "The Sacrifices" (this section of the Law) useless. He didn't take the penalty
away...rather He took it upon himself. But the penalty still stands: the wage of sin = death.
Dcontroversal, I know you guys are on to other portions of this debate but you bring up great questions to address again. So this post isn't directed at you specifically. I just want to share another apology (as it were).
What does the law say concerning the two questions I asked?
Originally Posted by
dcontroversal
Questions for law keepers....
1.
Was it against the law to work on the Sabbath?
Yet Jesus and his disciples picked corn.
2.
Was it unlawful to use the shew bread for anything other than it's given usage under the law?
Yet David and his companions ate it.....
So, what was the punishment for breaking these laws and why were they both overlooked and no punishment?
Let's step back from punishment for a second and look at the more pressing issue being addressed; the
sin that warrants punishment.
We start from a foundation that the law is the foundation of supreme authority in heaven and earth. It's why it was made from the same stone as God's throne and it's why it was placed in his ark (earthly throne) in the OT. It can't simply change because that would prove there wasn't any weight to it to begin with.
So if Christ & David broke the Sabbath then they are sinners. Pure and simple. Because a sin is transgressing God's Law.
...But we know that Christ did not sin...
So something has to give, right? This looks like clear justification for saying The Law (as in "the *whole* law" and not just "the law of Sacrifices") was put away. I mean, it had to be, right, if Christ did something that wasn't previously allowed? If he didn't sin then it obviously was put away, with reason.
But Christ himself explains to the Pharisees (those *supposed* keepers of God's law), what was going on so let's let Christ explain it himself:
Matthew 12:1-5
1 At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.
3 But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?
5 "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?
What is Christ saying here?
He's giving the Pharisees the *biggest* clue as to why it was possible for David and why it's possible for Christ and them. But the Pharisees can't see it because they don't see him or David for who or what they were/are..and for Christ MUCH more.
The clue is in the word "Priests".
Why was it "ok" for Christ and his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath? Christ even leans on the law to show that the law itself allows priests in the temple to break the Sabbath (which is not really them breaking it if the law said they could do it). Why? Because "
only priests are allowed to work on the Sabbath", in fact a priest's work *begins* on the Sabbath. (like a pastor's work begins on Sunday for so many today).
But how or why was David, Christ and company counted by God as priest? Who were not from the tribe of Levi?
Order of Melchizedek - The Priest-king priesthood.
David, Christ, and his disciples are priests-kings. So
they were fully within the law to work on the Sabbath and eat the temple's bread;
no punishment required because no sin committed...but the Pharisees didn't see this. And even today, we forget this massive revelation even though Hebrews explains this to us.
Christ even hints at it in the rest of his answer to the Pharisees...
Matthew 12:6-8 {brackets & CAPS are mine and for emphasis & context}
6" But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here {i.e. the LIVING TEMPLE which every person in Christ of Melchizedek's order is}.
7"But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' {HEBREWS QUOTES THIS; Melchizedek priesthood superseding Levitical priesthood & its sacrifice 'sin=death' Law} you would not have condemned the innocent {Christ and company JUST NOW}.
8 "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
We must read everything Christ did in light of the revelation we have that he was a heavenly ordained (High)
Priest of God after the order of Melchizedek and then ask ourselves whether he actually broke any law or whether he was fully with the law with everything he did.